[governance] Second Draft of Statement on USCommerceDepartment/GAC chairintervention

Mon Aug 22 10:18:46 EDT 2005

>>> "Ian Peter" <ian.peter at ianpeter.com> 08/22/05 4:57 AM >>>

>1. I would rather argue this case on the principle of the
preferability of
>multilateral control of the root zone, rather than on a particular
example
>which raises more red herrings than an Atlantic fishing fleet.

In the real world, policy decisions are always connected to messy
facts. If you can't recognize the principle in this instance, when and
where can you recognize it? 

>2. I would prefer to argue unilateral unacceptability in principle,
rather
>than use an example in which the US point is largely the same as that
>advanced by GAC.

We (IGP) have been doing that for a year. I (MM) have been doing that
for 4 years. In every case, the answer has been: "but the US never uses
that power!" Now it has used it. We must make note of it. 

>3. I would be more careful with my words than to refer to a "veto"
when no
>veto exists.   

How do you know? Is your point contingent on .xxx getting approved
later? What if it is not? If ICANN's Board gets the not so-subtle hint
and now votes against .xxx, you don't call that a governmental veto?
What is it then? 

>4. I would not argue the case against unilateral control on the basis
of
>public policy being an area where government has no legitimate
involvement,
>when government involvement in public policy is a central WSIS theme.

Hans did not make the argument on that basis; on the contrary he
believes very strongly that govts have a legitimate oversight role and
the IGP has published a statement calling for revision and formalization
of that role. But there are important points to make about HOW
governments should and should not get involved, which were noted in
Wolfgang's response. This (responding in an ad hoc, opportunistic
fashion to hot-button issues like porn) is not the way for governments
to get involved.

>5. I would not argue against unilateral control on a basis which
requires me
>to defend current ICANN public policy evolution processes (note the
wording

The statement we prepared does not defend ICANN processes at all. Since
we both know far more than you about how perverse and unfair they can
be, we'd be happy to add strong language to that effect.

>6. I don't see why the US Government or GAC should have any less
rights than
>me to write to ICANN and suggest they reverse a decision. 

Oh, come on. Let's have a serious discussion, please. If you think the
US Commerce Dept's intervention is nothing but a letter than ICANN is
free to ignore you are far removed from the reality of ICANN.

>7.I would do everything I could to avoid confusing the debate on
unilateral
>control of root zone policy with a debate on censorship or pron.

Let's rephrase this to see if I understand what you are trying to say:
unilateral control of the root zone is bad in and of itself, not because
it has any policy implications? But why do we care about root zone
control if it cannot be used to affect policy? That is what the US and
ICANN apologists say - it doesn't really matter. So tell us why it
matters if not for its impact on policy? And what policy could be more
cenbtral to CS values than freedom of expression?

Ian Peter
Senior Partner
Ian Peter and Associates Pty Ltd
P.O Box 10670  Adelaide St
Brisbane 4000
Australia
Tel +614 1966 7772
Email ian.peter at ianpeter.com 
www.ianpeter.com 
www.internetmark2.org 
www.nethistory.info (Winner, Top100 Sites Award, PCMagazine Spring
2005)

-----Original Message-----
From: governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org 
[mailto:governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org] On Behalf Of Hans Klein
Sent: Monday, 22 August 2005 3:34 PM
To: Milton Mueller; aizu at anr.org; governance at lists.cpsr.org 
Subject: Re: [governance] Second Draft of Statement on
USCommerceDepartment/GAC chairintervention

I strongly agree that this is a very significant incident.  It is the
first 
"political" use by the US of its authority over the root.

To date, concerns about the US's "special role" vis a vis ICANN have
been 
hypothetical.  The US has had the power to veto ICANN decisions, but it
has 
not (visibly) done so.

The world watched closely when .PS was added to the root, and the world

held its breath when the Libyan TLD registry experienced some
operational 
failures. But in fact  these cases were not the result of
geo-politics.

So the US could -- and did -- claim to have a good track record as the

neutral overseer of the IANA function.  But that good record is now
marred.

First, the US veto of the new TLD is a unilateral exercise of its
authority 
over the root.  It manifests the unique power that the US has.

Second, this action is based on explicitly socio-political concerns (as

opposed to techno-administrative concerns.)  It is a "political"
action. So 
the claim of neutrality is shattered.

So we now have a case where unilateral control of the root by one
country 
allows it to impose its political will on the Internet.

Will every government now demand an equal right?  Will all governments
wish 
to exercise political control over ICANN?  If so, things are going to
get 
very complex indeed!

It is indeed important to react vocally to this development, so that
others 
see its significance.

Hans

At 02:46 PM 8/20/2005, Milton Mueller wrote:
>Izumi:
>Thanks for your comment, understand about the lack of time. Frankly,
I
>didn't expect you or certain other interim ALAC Board members to
change
>your minds about anything. So the revisions were not targeted at you.
I
>do however greatly respect your surprising willingness to engage,
which
>contrasts quite markedly with certain other ALAC appointees. Thank
you
>again.
>
>I would like to address one issue you raise, however.
>
> >>> Izumi AIZU <aizu at anr.org> 08/20/05 2:11 PM >>>
> >AND I don't see that urgent need/impact this statement
> >would bring about at this point of time where ICANN already
> >differed by one month, ICM accepted that, etc.
>
>Of course ICM had no choice but to accept the delay after it was
>requested by DoC. I am quite sure they are not happy about this delay
>and possible reversal. My guess is that they want to be cooperative
so
>that they maximize their chances of being treated favorably during
this
>delay. But if someone holds a gun to your head and says, "give me
your
>money or I'll shoot you" and you respond cooperatively, saying "sure,
>here it is, take it" - it doesn't mean you agree with what is
>happening.
>
>Regarding "urgent need" I think we may never agree, but I am very
>confident about my intuition that this is a critical event in ICANN's
>history. The refusal or inability of ALAC and IGC to address it is
quite
>disturbing - especially since WGIG Report identified US unilateral
>control of DNS as a priority issue. I guess people are mixed up
because
>of the "pornography" connection. They are overlooking the only two
>critical facts that matter: 1) this is the first time the US Commerce
>Dept has used its special powers over ICANN in a policy context; 2)
the
>political pressure is coming from a group that advocates censorship.
If
>.xxx decision is reversed and the precedent means what I think it
will
>mean, and we say nothing, it is a tragedy.
>_______________________________________________
>governance mailing list
>governance at lists.cpsr.org 
>https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance 

_______________________________________________
governance mailing list
governance at lists.cpsr.org 
https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance 

-- 
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
Version: 7.0.338 / Virus Database: 267.10.13/78 - Release Date:
19/08/2005

-- 
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
Version: 7.0.338 / Virus Database: 267.10.13/78 - Release Date:
19/08/2005

_______________________________________________
governance mailing list
governance at lists.cpsr.org
https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance